In aerodynamics, the aspect ratio of a wing is essentially the ratio of its length to its breadth (chord). A high aspect ratio indicates long, narrow wings, whereas a low aspect ratio indicates short, stubby wings.

For most wings the length of the chord is not a constant but varies along the wing, so the aspect ratio AR is defined as the square of the wingspan divided by the area S of the wing. [which is equal to the length-to-breadth ratio for a constant chord wing.

Aspect Ratio's calculations for wings have been around for a while so all Kite companies should be calculating the same way.

For Example a 6m x 3m rectangle has a aspect ratio of 2. The length is 2 times the width.

By formula = (6^2 )/ (6x3) = 36 / 18 = 2.

The denominator in kite terms is the size of the kite (square metreage of the kite, measured accurately).

BWD wrote:Aspect ratio = ((wing span)^2/surface area)
So a hypothetical 12m kite shaped like a flat rectangle when unrolled, with a 5.4 AR has a span of 9.2m and chord of 1.3m.
Really kites aren't shaped so simply, and other factors are considered but that's the idea.

Formula is correct, and the easy way to measure (but numbers are not...)

Aspect Ratio = span / average width.

Area = span * average width.

Meaning AR = span^2 / area.

So your 12m2 kite with an AR of 5.4 has a span = sqrt(AR*area) = sqrt(5.4*12m2) = 8.0 meter.

And an average width = span / AR = area / span = 1.49 meter.

I dont agree that "numbers" are just marketing, so you simply lay your kite out flat on the ground and measure the span from tip to tip, and use the nominal size printed on the kite to calculate the AR.

That works fine - and most kites are relatively okay in their size measurement, is my experience.

Even if a 12m2 kite actually was 13m2 - the error in AR calculation will only be about 7 to 8% which is not bad really

Of course, like others point out - the AR is only one parameter, as whether the area is in the middle or the tips, and how flat/c the kite is, means much more.

But for those interested in this number, using the written area and the measured span is fine IMO

Agree that it is also interesting to measure a kite up precisely yourself, if you want to know the exact size.

Why do so many use the term "12m" about a 12m2 kite ?

The word constellation 12m does not exist as an area measurement in Danish nor German, and also lacking in most other languages, so why do so many english speaking say "12m" ?
Simple lazyness, or old bad habits or ?

plummet wrote:it would interesting to know the changes in projected AR for different kite styles.
for example the projected ar of a C kite should be alot less than the project ar or an sle with the same AR......

plummet wrote:it would interesting to know the changes in projected AR for different kite styles.
for example the projected ar of a C kite should be alot less than the project ar or an sle with the same AR......

interesting. its bizarr that the switch wave kite has the highest projected a/r. i would have thought the wave kit would have the lowest....

The Method is the least 'C' shaped or the models listed resulting in a higher projected span. In the realm of contemporary inflato traction kites, AR (projected or flat,) is not really a true predictor of performance unless all other variables are the same.

plummet wrote:interesting. its bizarr that the switch wave kite has the highest projected a/r. i would have thought the wave kit would have the lowest....

BWD wrote:Aspect ratio = ((wing span)^2/surface area)
So a hypothetical 12m kite shaped like a flat rectangle when unrolled, with a 5.4 AR has a span of 9.2m and chord of 1.3m.
Really kites aren't shaped so simply, and other factors are considered but that's the idea.

Formula is correct, and the easy way to measure (but numbers are not...)

Aspect Ratio = span / average width.

Area = span * average width.

Meaning AR = span^2 / area.

So your 12m2 kite with an AR of 5.4 has a span = sqrt(AR*area) = sqrt(5.4*12m2) = 8.0 meter.

And an average width = span / AR = area / span = 1.49 meter.

I dont agree that "numbers" are just marketing, so you simply lay your kite out flat on the ground and measure the span from tip to tip, and use the nominal size printed on the kite to calculate the AR.

That works fine - and most kites are relatively okay in their size measurement, is my experience.

Even if a 12m2 kite actually was 13m2 - the error in AR calculation will only be about 7 to 8% which is not bad really

Of course, like others point out - the AR is only one parameter, as whether the area is in the middle or the tips, and how flat/c the kite is, means much more.

But for those interested in this number, using the written area and the measured span is fine IMO

Agree that it is also interesting to measure a kite up precisely yourself, if you want to know the exact size.

Why do so many use the term "12m" about a 12m2 kite ?

The word constellation 12m does not exist as an area measurement in Danish nor German, and also lacking in most other languages, so why do so many english speaking say "12m" ?
Simple lazyness, or old bad habits or ?

Peter

This is not a true way to calculate the aspect ratio. You can have the same aspect ratio for different sized kites and if you use your calculation logic then different size kites will have different aspect ratios.

Peter_Frank wrote:
Why do so many use the term "12m" about a 12m2 kite ?

The word constellation 12m does not exist as an area measurement in Danish nor German, and also lacking in most other languages, so why do so many english speaking say "12m" ?
Simple lazyness, or old bad habits or ?

Because there is no such thing as "12m2", it is 12m², but most keyboards do not have a way to produce that character. Everyone know what you're talking about when you say you have a 12m kite.